How long before we double CO2? If we keep going as we are, we'd probably hit it in the next 30 or 40 years. This will bring a rise in average global temperature of four to six degrees above pre-industrial before the end of the century - and then more.

Bob Tisdale has written about us reaching 400 ppm at WUWT. He quoted from a press release from NOAA:

James Butler, director of NOAA’s Global Monitoring Division, added that it would be difficult to reverse the increases of greenhouse gases which are driving increased atmospheric temperatures. “Elimination of about 80 percent of fossil fuel emissions would essentially stop the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but concentrations of carbon dioxide would not start decreasing until even further reductions are made and then it would only do so slowly."

Is Bob advocating massive geo-engineering? That would be a generous interpretation. I don't buy it. I think he really does not understand that once CO2 gets into the air it takes a very long time before it's removed. It shows that he's never bothered to read up on the carbon cycle. For someone who pretends to be an expert in climate, Perennially Puzzled Bob Tisdale does a good job of faking complete ignorance (as always). What it demonstrates is that he's never in his life studied general science.

From the WUWT comments

Bob's article brought out the most utter of the utter nutters at WUWT. Not only were there lots of people celebrating this unfolding disaster, there was the usual crowd of the illiterati who couldn't wait to show off their science denial. I imagine these same people party when they hear of other people suffering drought, wildfires and floods. They think such things are something to chuckle over - as long as it's happening to someone else.

May 7, 2015 at 6:58 am
Or: Global carbon dioxide concentrations surpass 0.0004 for the first month since measurements began.
Or: If the atmosphere was made up of oranges and CO2 was an apple then for every 2,500 oranges you would find 1 apple. It takes 18 oranges to make 1 carton of a well known brand of orange juice, hence you’d have to buy 139 cartons on average to get yourself the juice of 1 apple. But that 1/18th of a carton will cause the other 138 cartons to heat up to catastrophic temperatures.
We’re all doomed

Alan the Brit doesn't know that for every CO2 molecule we create by burning fossil fuel, we eliminate two molecules of oxygen from the air - we don't create more.

Eric Worrall doesn't realise that he's the one living in the nuthouse:

May 7, 2015 at 7:05 am
This is how it will end I think – as the climate worriers become ever more detached from reality, their lunacy will become irrefutably obvious.

Walt D. wrote:

May 7, 2015 at 6:49 am
When it reaches 800ppm the global temperature will rise by 1.1C according to some estimates. At 2ppm per year increase (which incidentally does not depend linearly on anthropogenic CO2), this should take about 200 years.
It’s going to be a long time before they grow grapes in Siberia.

May 7, 2015 at 7:17 am
Some at NOAA hasn’t made the calculations:
Humans emit about 4.5 ppmv/year.
The atmosphere increases with about 2.3 ppmv/year.
Net sinks are around 2.2 ppmv/year.
Thus if we lower human emissions to 2.2 ppmv/year, there is a break-even between human emissions and sink rate.
Seems more like a 50% reduction, not 80%, for an end of the increase and below that the start of a reduction in atmospheric CO2 levels. Even not so slowly: a half life time of ~40 years is not that slow…
And indeed: a new record CO2 level, but no significant temperature increase? I suppose that most plants, especially those in dry areas, are quite happy with all that extra CO2…

For a change, someone corrects Ferdinand. MarkB replied:

May 7, 2015 at 8:17 am
Ferdinand,
The net sink of 2.2 ppmv/year is largely the flux difference between the atmosphere and the ocean. It is a function of the partial pressure difference at the interface so the net sink will not be a constant 2.2 ppmv/year if human emissions change significantly. I can’t say for certain that NOAA has done the calculation correctly, but your simple argument is not correct.

Allencic likes to fart in windstorms.

May 7, 2015 at 7:37 am
I still think the best way to express CO2 concentration to the average Joe is to say that it’s 4 molecules of carbon dioxide for every 10,000 molecules of nitrogen, oxygen, argon and other trace gases. Big deal, we’ve gone from around 3 to 4 and only about 3% of that increase is caused by man. In other words, with no temperature rise of significance this invalidates the theory that increased CO2 means drastic warming. Ain’t happening. Just a fart in a windstorm.

M Courtney would do well to read more widely, too. (If only his Dad would let him wander out into the real world.)

May 7, 2015 at 7:45 am
I posted this on the Guardian earlier today.
“So CO2 concentration keeps rising and temperatures do not. Further evidence that climate sensitivity to CO2 is very low. As we sceptics have been arguing.
So this is good news.”
But it’s now been deleted (even from my comment history).

William Astley wrote this as part of a much longer "thought":

May 7, 2015 at 8:18 am
The Cult of CAGW needs a back-up plan. Planetary temperature has started to fall. The drop in planetary temperature is very soon going to appear as if the warming switch has been turned off. The mechanisms which were inhibiting the solar cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover have started to abate. While the inhibiting mechanisms were doing their thing, solar activity has dropping year by year, so when the inhibiting mechanism abate, bingo, the planet cools significantly due to increased cloud cover.

Is WUWT attracting more and more nutters? The final stomping ground of the illiterati. I don't think there was a single comment from anyone who has a serious interest in climate science. Or even anyone with a passing interest. I don't think there was a single thoughtful "thought". Why would any sane person bother.

6 comments:

Strange that Bob Tisdale cannot be bothered to look at Wikipedia before making a fool of himself. Once we stop emitting the reductions in CO2 will be very slow, it will take many centuries until the concentration is somewhat back to normal.

If the atmosphere was made up of oranges and CO2 was an apple then for every 2,500 oranges you would find 1 apple.

on CO2, it now appears that Judith Curry has gone full denial on the anthropogenic nature of the rise.

...I am not convinced by simple mass balance attribution arguments based on current observations. I think it unlikely that 100% of the increase in atm CO2 is caused by humans. It is not unreasonable to start from a point of 50-50 (Fred’s conclusion) and see if you can falsify natural variability as large as 50%. It may not be 50%, but I don’t think it is 0%.

CO2 has been between c 180ppm and 280ppm for a million years through several ice age cycles, and suddenly rose to c 400ppm commensurate with industrialisation, during which time we have emitted about double the CO2 necessary to cause such a rise.

How is it possible to view JCs statement as anything other than denying proven facts?

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

New Look

G'day. HotWhopper is having a facelift. Do let me know if you find anything missing or broken.

When you read older articles on a desktop or notebook, you may find the sidebar moves down the page, instead of being on the side. That can happen with some older articles if your browser is not the full width of your computer screen. I am not planning to check every previous post, so if you come across something particularly annoying, send me an email and I'll fix it. Or you can add your thoughts to this feedback article.

You can use the menu up top to get to the blogroll or whatever it is you might be looking for on the sidebar.

When moderation shows as ON, there may be a short or occasionally longer delay before comments appear. When moderation is OFF, comments will appear as soon as they are posted.

All you need to know about WUWT

WUWT insider Willis Eschenbach tells you all you need to know about Anthony Watts and his blog, WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). As part of his scathing commentary, Wondering Willis accuses Anthony Watts of being clueless about the blog articles he posts. To paraphrase:

Even if Anthony had a year to analyze and dissect each piece...(he couldn't tell if it would)... stand the harsh light of public exposure.

Definition of Denier (Oxford): A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.
‘a prominent denier of global warming’
‘a climate change denier’

Alternative definition: A former French coin, equal to one twelfth of a Sou, which was withdrawn in the 19th century. Oxford. (The denier has since resurfaced with reduced value.)